Evaluation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Core Antimicrobial Stewardship Curriculum for Infectious Diseases Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship (AS) programs are required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and should ideally have infectious diseases (ID) physician involvement; however, only 50% of ID fellowship programs have formal AS curricula. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a workgroup to develop a core AS curriculum for ID fellows. Here we study its impact. METHODS: ID program directors and fellows in 56 fellowship programs were surveyed regarding the content and effectiveness of their AS training before and after implementation of the IDSA curriculum. Fellows' knowledge was assessed using multiple-choice questions. Fellows completing their first year of fellowship were surveyed before curriculum implementation ("pre-curriculum") and compared to first-year fellows who complete the curriculum the following year ("post-curriculum"). RESULTS: Forty-nine (88%) program directors and 105 (67%) fellows completed the pre-curriculum surveys; 35 (64%) program directors and 79 (50%) fellows completed the post-curriculum surveys. Prior to IDSA curriculum implementation, only 51% of programs had a "formal" curriculum. After implementation, satisfaction with AS training increased among program directors (16% to 68%) and fellows (51% to 68%). Fellows' confidence increased in 7/10 AS content areas. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 4.6 to 5.1 correct answers of 9 questions (P = .028). The major hurdle to curriculum implementation was time, both for formal teaching and for e-learning. CONCLUSIONS: Effective AS training is a critical component of ID fellowship training. The IDSA Core AS Curriculum can enhance AS training, increase fellow confidence, and improve overall satisfaction of fellows and program directors.

Ambulatory Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy May Be Cost-Effective Compared to Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the practice of medicine in America. During the March 2020 lockdown, elective cases were canceled to conserve hospital beds/resources resulting in financial losses for health systems and delayed surgical care. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) has been shown to be safe and could be a strategy to ensure patients receive care that has been delayed, conserve hospital resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of patients undergoing aPCNL against standard PCNL (sPCNL). Materials and Methods: Ninty-eight patients underwent PCNL at Indiana University Methodist Hospital, a tertiary referral center, by three expert surgeons from January 2020 to September 2020. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the 30-day rates of emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and complications between sPCNL and aPCNL. Secondary outcomes included cost analysis and stone-free rates (SFRs). Propensity score matching was performed to ensure the groups were balanced. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Results: Ninety-eight patients underwent PCNL during the study period (sPCNL = 75 and aPCNL = 23). After propensity score matching, 42 patients were available for comparison (sPCNL = 19 and aPCNL = 23). We found no difference in 30-day ED visits, readmissions, or complications between the two groups. aPCNL resulted in cost savings of $5327 ± 442 per case. SFRs were higher for aPCNL compared with sPCNL. Conclusions: aPCNL appears safe to perform and does not have a higher rate of ED visits or readmissions compared with sPCNL. aPCNL may also be cost-effective compared with sPCNL.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate: What is the True Rate of Postoperative Opioid Use?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if patients were obtaining opioids after HoLEP from other sources - despite our opioid-free postoperative pathway - we utilized a national prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) to review all patients who underwent HoLEP at our institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all HoLEPs completed by two fellowship-trained surgeons. We utilized a national PDMP to determine the true rate of postoperative opioid use. The primary outcome was filling of an opioid prescription within 31 postoperative days. Student t-tests and chi-square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: From July 2018-July 2020, 284 men underwent HoLEP. Despite our opioid-free pathway, 35 men (12.4%) received postoperative opioids. Unfortunately, 41.2% of opioids were prescribed by our inpatient physician assistant on his own accord. To prevent confounding, these patients were excluded from primary analyses. Thus, only 7.4% of patients received postoperative opioids. On univariate analysis, surgeon experience, chronic opioid use, any opioid exposure, benzodiazepine use, and chronic pain were associated with postoperative opioid use. On multivariate analysis, only preoperative opioid exposure (OR 41.9, P = 0.0383) was identified as a significant variable. CONCLUSION: 92.6% of patients did not obtain postoperative opioids on our opioid-free post-HoLEP pathway, but 7.4% of patients did obtain opioids from outside sources. Proper education of the surgical team is key to prevent inappropriate opioid prescribing. On multivariate analysis, we identified that any preoperative opioid exposure was associated with an increased risk of obtaining postoperative opioids.

Opioid Free Ureteroscopy: What is the True Failure Rate?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the true failure rate of opioid free ureteroscopy (OF-URS) and rates of new-persistent opioid use utilizing a national prescription drug monitoring program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified 239 patients utilizing our retrospective stone database who underwent OF-URS from Februrary 2018-March 2020. In Feb 2018, we initiated a OF-URS pathway (diclofenac, tamsulosin, acetaminophen, pyridium and oxybutynin). Patients who had a contraindication to NSAIDs were excluded from primary analyses. A prescription drug monitoring program was then utilized to determine the number of patients who failed OF-URS (defined as receipt of an opioid within 31 days of surgery) as well as rates of new-persistent opioid use (defined as receipt of opioid 91-180 days after surgery). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Tests were 2-sided and statistical significance was set at P<0.05. RESULTS: We found a OF-URS failure rate of 16.6% and 14.0% in the total and opioid naïve cohorts, respectively. Rates of new-persistent opioid use were 0.9% and 1.2%, respectively (lower than published expected rate of ~6% after URS with postoperative opioids). 91% of patients obtained opioid from alternative sources. Uni/multivariate analyses were performed for both cohorts. In the total cohort, benzodiazepine users had a lower risk of OF-URS failure on multivariate analysis. No variables were associated with OF-URS failure in the opioid naïve cohort. CONCLUSION: The true failure rate of OF-URS is higher than previously thought at 16.6% and 14.0%. However, efforts to reduce opioid prescriptions with OF-URS pathways have successfully reduced new-persistent opioid use.

A Cost Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate with and without Moses™.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a size-independent treatment option for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. HoLEP has been shown to have excellent improvements in prostate symptom scores and maximum flow rates that have been durable for 2 decades. However, the steep learning curve associated with HoLEP has prevented its widespread adoption. New advancements in lasers, specifically the Moses™ pulse-modulation technology, have resulted in improvements in hemostasis and achieving same-day discharges and catheter removals. We aimed to perform a cost-comparison to analyze if Moses-augmented HoLEP (m-HoLEP) resulted in cost-savings. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a single expert surgeon's experience from May 2018 to November 2020, comparing m-HoLEP with HoLEP. Perioperative and postoperative variables were abstracted from the medical record. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using SAS® 9.4. Two-sided significance was set at p <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 312 men underwent HoLEP during the study period (192 in m-HoLEP group and 120 in HoLEP group). The m-HoLEP group had more same-day discharges (p <0.001) and emergency department visits (6.3% vs 1.7%, p=0.0071). m-HoLEP resulted in hospital cost savings of $840 for the initial surgical episode (p=0.0297). When factoring in emergency department visits/readmissions, the cost savings decreased to $747 per case (p=0.0574). CONCLUSIONS: m-HoLEP was associated with same-day discharge and hospital cost savings of $840 for the initial surgical episode. Further study in other institutions with surgeons of varying experience levels will need to be performed to see if these findings can be replicated.